"Put to flight" to drive the Vandal army to flight
Typo re-establishing vandal authority and killing Godas and charges at the vandal centre
"with" a considerable forced to fight from a considerable numerical disadvantage
Typo "was" counter-attack is also an indication
Awkward: and the difficulties of the command Belisarius faced
This quote seems to say the opposite of what was intended: "There is room for wonder whether if Belisarius had been opposed to a commander of some ability and experience in warfare, he would not have been hopelessly defeated
Hello Sturmvogel, thanks for the review! I've fixed the typos. On Rome, the city is of course accessible by sea through the Tiber, much as Paris was to the Vikings. To be safe though, I've replaced "piratical expeditions", which may conjure up images of Blackbeard, with "raids on the coasts". On the quote, I am merely repeating Bury and he Procopius, because the comment has merit. It is undeniable that Belisarius had more than a bit of luck in this campaign, but any great general needs luck, and in view of the odds this campaign faced at its outset, it is natural that Procopius thanks fortune (and Justinian God). However, I don't think that it negates Belisarius'own ability as a field commander. The same argument could be made for Caesar or Napoleon, who were "almost" defeated any number of times by less skilful opponents, or other "miraculous" campaigns like the 1940 German Sichelschnitt, which could have failed at any point if the Allies had displayed a bit more capability, foresight or initiative. As I hope becomes evident from the text, Belisarius definitely kept a cooler head than Gelimer, and managing to hold together, let alone impose discipline on, such a heterogenous army in a foreign land, where a single defeat meant irretrievable disaster, was no mean feat. Constantine ✍ 08:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but read the quote carefully. IMO, there's a "not" that doesn't belong because Belisarius was not defeated, but victorious.
Ah, I see what you mean, but (bearing in mind that English is not my first language) I think that the meaning is exactly the same (German and Greek certainly use a similar syntax for such sentences). The quote is certainly correctly copied. Constantine ✍ 17:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then there are two choices as I see it since the original text has the opposite effect from its intent, elide the "not" with an ellipsis, or paraphrase it entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to me the sentence reads perfectly fine, especially in view of the context, but if it can be misread, I suppose I'll better change it. I've broken it up in two parts, and have paraphrased it slightly to connect the two. BTW, do you have any comments or suggestions in general, above and beyond GA requirements? Constantine ✍ 08:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why we're reading the sentence differently? Your revision works fine. I don't see any real issues with the article as you made a map showing the broad outlines of the campaign and all of the significant locations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
